Rugby World Cup 2019: 'Officiating not good enough' - World Rugby

First topic message reminder :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49810476

Well, do we all agree with world rugby ?

I have noticed in particular, that the French refs seem below par, they do not ref the scrums or breakdown properly, have they been advised to let things flow ? I noticed this when both Poite and Garces reffed the Wales V Ireland warm up games.

Is this world rugby giving the officials a kick up the rear before things get worse ? I think it's not very professional coming out with into the public domain.

What do you all think ?

LordDowlais wrote:FFS Taylorman, the Lions series is over, gone, let it go man.

You are just making yourself look really bitter. We all know the All Blacks are great, but as the song goes, you can't always get what you want.

New Zealand have benefited a lot more from dubious refereeing calls than they have had them cost them. Richie McCaw made a career out of conning the ref.

I just did in the previous post. I guess letting Ritchie go isn’t as easy huh?

I don't think LD is wrong in the slightest with that comment, refs knew what he was doing yet still did nothing.

dummy_half wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:FFS Taylorman, the Lions series is over, gone, let it go man.

You are just making yourself look really bitter. We all know the All Blacks are great, but as the song goes, you can't always get what you want.

New Zealand have benefited a lot more from dubious refereeing calls than they have had them cost them. Richie McCaw made a career out of conning the ref.

Richie McCaw was possibly the best open side flanker ever - conning the ref, or at the very least playing to what the ref will allow of you rather than the laws as written,  is one of the necessary skills to be that (Neil Back wasn't exactly an angel either).

I'm not doubting their abilities, I am just pointing out that New Zealand have been the beneficiaries  of dodgy refereeing decisions more than any others over the years, yet he is moaning that one that went against them.

It's the same as that Wayne Barnes forward pass against France years before, they need to get over it. They have more go their way than most, the BOD incident in 2005 being a prime example.

LordDowlais wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:FFS Taylorman, the Lions series is over, gone, let it go man.

You are just making yourself look really bitter. We all know the All Blacks are great, but as the song goes, you can't always get what you want.

New Zealand have benefited a lot more from dubious refereeing calls than they have had them cost them. Richie McCaw made a career out of conning the ref.

Richie McCaw was possibly the best open side flanker ever - conning the ref, or at the very least playing to what the ref will allow of you rather than the laws as written,  is one of the necessary skills to be that (Neil Back wasn't exactly an angel either).

I'm not doubting their abilities, I am just pointing out that New Zealand have been the beneficiaries  of dodgy refereeing decisions more than any others over the years, yet he is moaning that one that went against them.

It's the same as that Wayne Barnes forward pass against France years before, they need to get over it. They have more go their way than most, the BOD incident in 2005 being a prime example.

Nah, I wasn’t moaning about one going against us, I was discussing the process used to get to a decision, and went to lengths to say it was regardless of the actual decision, because a similar thing happened again here but no, you jump straight to ‘nz get favoured blah blah’. Geez. Then you turn it into a nz being the beneficiary’s of decisions, when I was referring to the process...not the decision. Can people read or what?
But anyway, we move on.

Taylorman wrote:But anyway, we move on.

Yes I agree, so lets not see you and your gang on here drag up that Lions game anymore.

Taylorman wrote:My point, and it stands, is the process these guys follow in applying a decision. For a ref to first indicate penalty, then ask the official specifically assigned to manage the replay, who confirms the refs on field decision, then be convinced by someone not even involved in the process so far to overule (through suggesting an alternative) both of them, is a debacle. Two decisons were made, then a third was a applied. Weakness on Poites part. At that point in the process all I see is either garces undermining the confidence of the correctly followed process that has already arrived at a decision, or, his wanting to influence the result of an important match. There is no alternative. Between the three, they did not come to an agreement.

I saying that, these guys are under huuuge pressure, and thats part of it. the post match review and fuss focussed more on the correctness of the decision in relation to the players actions themselves, when the real learning from that should have been the process followed to produce such a debacle of a decision. But as usual, fans picked sides and 'fought' for the result that best suited their agenda. I have always maintained the match deserved a better process in which to come of with such an important decision.

If it had have been, perhaps we wouldnt be reliving similar events as much as we still are.

Sorry you can't see that.

So none of what happened here surprises me, especially when two of the same three are present.

Na man, your 'point' was literally just a sad dig about the main reason for Ire/Eng/Waes' success being SH coaches, as if you, personally, glean superiority from 3 mens' professional success. I made a light joke response to try and cut you down where it hurts - ABs success, or lack of it v the Lions - so you might lay off the same old narrative, but you missed the tone and have tried to turn it in to a 'woe is me' story which is, still, way off the mark, arguing about how Garces and Poite cheated you or whatever. Nothing wrong with the process, as you well know.

It's been at least 2 years of this boring, jingoistic nonsense from you on a NH rugby forum. It's not even WUMming, it's pretty clear you believe what you say, and it's worrying. It's basically brainwashing. I've been listening to a few of the Kiwi media's rugby programmes over the last few months and I do see how you can get the way you are, there's a constant snide disdin to the anything NH whenever they discuss the NH, without any of the key detail or context. I get it. The ABs are a cultural megolith in NZ. You need it, facts be damned, and if making England and the 6Ns in to a bogeyman helps that, then that can only help.

But keep it to yourself? I'm not sure I've read anything from you in the last week which hasn't been snide and dismissive and about NH v SH - whether praising the SH players in NH teams as if they're the only ones that make them successful, the NH coaches etc. It's beenthe same for 2 years.

It's not your fault. I 'get' how narratives work. We have it here with Brexit - emotionally pair an idea with something people care about over and over and it's very, very hard for people to give it up. For you, if NZ lose, it's because Kiwis have gone north. If they win, it's because they're superior. If the Saffas win, it's because the SH is still better than the north. If England or Ireland or even Wales win, it's solely because the SH is weak through money, World Rugby is possibly corrupt, and of course they have SH coaches, so, really, the SH/you won.

If I can read you like a playbook, it means you're, basically, brainwashed, and trotting out a mantra.

Just lighten up. Let go of whatever you've wedded to the idea of the All Blacks/SH v NH. It sounds like an Englishman stole your girlfriend or something. Come on. Just contribute a bit more than snark and sneering.

As for the actual topic, thought Nic Berry had a mixed bag today. Let a LOT go for the sake of the game. Similar to Nige in that regard. Offsides and dropped scrums etc. were never going to be penalised.

Some pretty bad misses so far for the on-field refereeing team plus TMO.

I would venture to say that Nic Berry heard World Rugby's comments LOUD and CLEAR as they relate to assessing head area tackles. And thank goodness.

Who knows, had Reece been sent off, maybe Aus would have struggled. More importantly, had Reece known he would have been sent off for his reckless head tackle, maybe he wouldnt have done it, and he and yato would both have played the whole match....which surely is the point of all this head injury stuff anyway?

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My point, and it stands, is the process these guys follow in applying a decision. For a ref to first indicate penalty, then ask the official specifically assigned to manage the replay, who confirms the refs on field decision, then be convinced by someone not even involved in the process so far to overule (through suggesting an alternative) both of them, is a debacle. Two decisons were made, then a third was a applied. Weakness on Poites part. At that point in the process all I see is either garces undermining the confidence of the correctly followed process that has already arrived at a decision, or, his wanting to influence the result of an important match. There is no alternative. Between the three, they did not come to an agreement.

I saying that, these guys are under huuuge pressure, and thats part of it. the post match review and fuss focussed more on the correctness of the decision in relation to the players actions themselves, when the real learning from that should have been the process followed to produce such a debacle of a decision. But as usual, fans picked sides and 'fought' for the result that best suited their agenda. I have always maintained the match deserved a better process in which to come of with such an important decision.

If it had have been, perhaps we wouldnt be reliving similar events as much as we still are.

Sorry you can't see that.

So none of what happened here surprises me, especially when two of the same three are present.

Na man, your 'point' was literally just a sad dig about the main reason for Ire/Eng/Waes' success being SH coaches, as if you, personally, glean superiority from 3 mens' professional success. I made a light joke response to try and cut you down where it hurts - ABs success, or lack of it v the Lions - so you might lay off the same old narrative, but you missed the tone and have tried to turn it in to a 'woe is me' story which is, still, way off the mark, arguing about how Garces and Poite cheated you or whatever. Nothing wrong with the process, as you well know.

It's been at least 2 years of this boring, jingoistic nonsense from you on a NH rugby forum. It's not even WUMming, it's pretty clear you believe what you say, and it's worrying. It's basically brainwashing. I've been listening to a few of the Kiwi media's rugby programmes over the last few months and I do see how you can get the way you are, there's a constant snide disdin to the anything NH whenever they discuss the NH, without any of the key detail or context. I get it. The ABs are a cultural megolith in NZ. You need it, facts be damned, and if making England and the 6Ns in to a bogeyman helps that, then that can only help.

But keep it to yourself? I'm not sure I've read anything from you in the last week which hasn't been snide and dismissive and about NH v SH - whether praising the SH players in NH teams as if they're the only ones that make them successful, the NH coaches etc. It's beenthe same for 2 years.

It's not your fault. I 'get' how narratives work. We have it here with Brexit - emotionally pair an idea with something people care about over and over and it's very, very hard for people to give it up. For you, if NZ lose, it's because Kiwis have gone north. If they win, it's because they're superior. If the Saffas win, it's because the SH is still better than the north. If England or Ireland or even Wales win, it's solely because the SH is weak through money, World Rugby is possibly corrupt, and of course they have SH coaches, so, really, the SH/you won.

If I can read you like a playbook, it means you're, basically, brainwashed, and trotting out a mantra.

Just lighten up. Let go of whatever you've wedded to the idea of the All Blacks/SH v NH. It sounds like an Englishman stole your girlfriend or something. Come on. Just contribute a bit more than snark and sneering.

Amen.

quinsforever wrote:I would venture to say that Nic Berry heard World Rugby's comments LOUD and CLEAR as they relate to assessing head area tackles. And thank goodness.

Tbf that's about as stonewall a red card as you can get. Berry's officiating (or not) of the gate and the breakdown was atrocious, probably the worst game so far.

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:My point, and it stands, is the process these guys follow in applying a decision. For a ref to first indicate penalty, then ask the official specifically assigned to manage the replay, who confirms the refs on field decision, then be convinced by someone not even involved in the process so far to overule (through suggesting an alternative) both of them, is a debacle. Two decisons were made, then a third was a applied. Weakness on Poites part. At that point in the process all I see is either garces undermining the confidence of the correctly followed process that has already arrived at a decision, or, his wanting to influence the result of an important match. There is no alternative. Between the three, they did not come to an agreement.

I saying that, these guys are under huuuge pressure, and thats part of it. the post match review and fuss focussed more on the correctness of the decision in relation to the players actions themselves, when the real learning from that should have been the process followed to produce such a debacle of a decision. But as usual, fans picked sides and 'fought' for the result that best suited their agenda. I have always maintained the match deserved a better process in which to come of with such an important decision.

If it had have been, perhaps we wouldnt be reliving similar events as much as we still are.

Sorry you can't see that.

So none of what happened here surprises me, especially when two of the same three are present.

Na man, your 'point' was literally just a sad dig about the main reason for Ire/Eng/Waes' success being SH coaches, as if you, personally, glean superiority from 3 mens' professional success. I made a light joke response to try and cut you down where it hurts - ABs success, or lack of it v the Lions - so you might lay off the same old narrative, but you missed the tone and have tried to turn it in to a 'woe is me' story which is, still, way off the mark, arguing about how Garces and Poite cheated you or whatever. Nothing wrong with the process, as you well know.

It's been at least 2 years of this boring, jingoistic nonsense from you on a NH rugby forum. It's not even WUMming, it's pretty clear you believe what you say, and it's worrying. It's basically brainwashing. I've been listening to a few of the Kiwi media's rugby programmes over the last few months and I do see how you can get the way you are, there's a constant snide disdin to the anything NH whenever they discuss the NH, without any of the key detail or context. I get it. The ABs are a cultural megolith in NZ. You need it, facts be damned, and if making England and the 6Ns in to a bogeyman helps that, then that can only help.

But keep it to yourself? I'm not sure I've read anything from you in the last week which hasn't been snide and dismissive and about NH v SH - whether praising the SH players in NH teams as if they're the only ones that make them successful, the NH coaches etc. It's beenthe same for 2 years.

It's not your fault. I 'get' how narratives work. We have it here with Brexit - emotionally pair an idea with something people care about over and over and it's very, very hard for people to give it up. For you, if NZ lose, it's because Kiwis have gone north. If they win, it's because they're superior. If the Saffas win, it's because the SH is still better than the north. If England or Ireland or even Wales win, it's solely because the SH is weak through money, World Rugby is possibly corrupt, and of course they have SH coaches, so, really, the SH/you won.

If I can read you like a playbook, it means you're, basically, brainwashed, and trotting out a mantra.

Just lighten up. Let go of whatever you've wedded to the idea of the All Blacks/SH v NH. It sounds like an Englishman stole your girlfriend or something. Come on. Just contribute a bit more than snark and sneering.

Amen.

Yes,   Amen to that. Didnt actually read it but love a good amen!
(Did see 'Brexit' though. Whats that? a new type of scrum machine?)

And after my 'But anyway, we move on.' ...but noooo...Miaow decides to go on another little rant about girlfriends, brainwashing, megoliths ( my personal fave), even the sport of trotting!

lets try it again...we move on...

miaow wrote:As for the actual topic, thought Nic Berry had a mixed bag today. Let a LOT go for the sake of the game. Similar to Nige in that regard. Offsides and dropped scrums etc. were never going to be penalised.

Yes, I just think he's a poor communicator, seems aloof and lacks the right intensity for a really good referee at this level. Watching the game last night, you could see things happening on the other side of the maul (TV foreground) and he was obviously poorly positioned on the other side of the melee; so couldn't possibly see what we all could see. Don't like the way he talks to the players either - a bit of a chip on his shoulder I'd say.

Offsides - in the News a lot recently.

I think therefore that they need more indepth analysis and scrutiny to explain just what the niggles are that fans have with them.

So first, if an offside happens that my team benefits from, then may such offsides happen all day, without ref whistle interference.
If offsides happen that impede my team, stop their flow, stall their attack etc, etc, etc, then they are an absolute bloody disgrace, refs should be sanctioned for allowing them, World Rugby should be fined for ignoring them!

My side has fast line speed. Them other lot are cheating offside illegitimate childen aka Pal Joeys.

LondonTiger wrote:My side has fast line speed. Them other lot are cheating offside illegitimate childen aka Pal Joeys.

 Now that is an interesting profanity substitution.

LondonTiger wrote:My side has fast line speed. Them other lot are cheating offside illegitimate childen aka Pal Joeys.

Filthy, 'holier than thou', lard-arsed bunch of cheats your lot. And that's just the fans...

Taylorman wrote:
Yes,   Amen to that. Didnt actually read it but love a good amen!

We both know that's not true.

Just lighten up a bit, that's all. It's boring reading the same old bitter narrative and weird smugness. This site clearly isn't going to be a receptive audience to 'NH BAD' over and over again, and it's pretty clear it's not 'just' about rugby for you, for whatever reason. Take a step back for a moment.

amen

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
Yes,   Amen to that. Didnt actually read it but love a good amen!

We both know that's not true.

Just lighten up a bit, that's all. It's boring reading the same old bitter narrative and weird smugness. This site clearly isn't going to be a receptive audience to 'NH BAD' over and over again, and it's pretty clear it's not 'just' about rugby for you, for whatever reason. Take a step back for a moment.

Gee still prattling on, now you’re advocating what one can say? Good luck with that. It’s a view, and it’s your reaction to it that is causing the angst, because you took what was clearly and carefully directed at a specific, and recently relevant process being applied. I used another example. You got on your horse, deflected, and took it all over the place. You tried to pre suppose what others are thinking, talked about stolen girlfriends and nh sh biases, I didn’t.
Take your own advice, chill, and move on

But I will take up your nh bad thing, the point being, that the fact is that rugby is set up to be NH vs SH whether you like it or not.

We have northern club comps, and southern club comps. The only single variation on that is that two South African sides have broken the mould and gone north. Recently there was a push to globalise the sport, and that certainly would have assisted sides like the Pacific, but the north wouldn’t have it, not enough bucks in it for them.

We have the 6N and the RC. Both are clearly NH SH defined.

We have winter and autumn tours north and south, Lions tours...south only.

So yes, many see the World Cup as north vs south, particularly when all four SH sides have been plundered by northern clubs, as have the Island sides.

So yeah, I will be backing a SH side over any northern side for that reason. I’m well aware this is a northern based site but Im also aware these are global views, and it needs the views of those not in the NH if only for purposes Balance and a different point of view. But I try to keep most of my comments to the rugby itself. You tend to want to advocate what I can and cannot say. That is, as I understand it, for mods, and happy to be guided on that basis.

TightHEAD wrote:amen

Touché

Taylorman wrote:Gee still prattling on, now you’re advocating what one can say? Good luck with that. It’s a view, and it’s your reaction to it that is causing the angst, because you took what was clearly and carefully directed at a specific, and recently relevant process being applied. I used another example. You got on your horse, deflected, and took it all over the place. You tried to pre suppose what others are thinking, talked about stolen girlfriends and nh sh biases, I didn’t.
Take your own advice, chill, and move on

Just try and hear what I'm saying. You've 'prattled on' for 2 years. If nothing else, be aware of your audience. I'm asking you - for me, but the forum generally - to give the SH v NH bullsheet a rest. Once that's recognised, then happy to move on.

Yaaaaaaaaawn

Only 4 SH sides at the World Cup, Taylorman? Shows the way your mind works!

Also, I very much doubt that ‘many’ people see the World Cup as NH vs SH. For me personally I can genuinely say I’ve never once thought of it in that way. Is that really how kiwis think?! It’s a WORLD cup. How on earth is it hemisphere vs hemisphere? Do you really root for, say, Namibia over Russia when they play just because of a line on the atlas? You weirdo!

Seriously, just enjoy the World Cup. Don’t worry that there is a line round the globe that, supposedly, differentiations between good and evil.

Oh, a tag team...

Ok then, there are four tier one sides. That satisfy your little mind? The rest are there to make up the numbers, and they are not being depleted by the north as much as the other four, include the island sides while we’re at it.

Do your scouts regularly visit Namibia? Cos they do here, oz, Argie, SA, and the Islands. We know that cos your sides have players like Aki, Anscombe, Te’o and many others in them.
Don’t think I’m he only ones that think there are four oracle

So yeah, there are more, but as with the other poster you have taken this away from the original article, where my point was about the process in which the current referees come to a decision.

And weirdo? Girlfriend stealing? Is that the level of maturity we get here? Ok. Thought it was for 6’s and over.

Plus, if you don’t like my posts then foe me. I take, by not doing that, you do.

Thanks...friend.

And who says I’m not enjoying the World Cup?

It’s great. ABs looking very good doncha think? The 1 vs 2 in pool has us practically in a semi already if everyone’s form is on point. That’s a scenario we’ve not seen before. A likely semi by day two...weird.

Next three weeks will be interesting.
.

The Oracle wrote:...Also, I very much doubt that ‘many’ people see the World Cup as NH vs SH....

Aside, perhaps, from the first tournament in 1987, NH vs SH has been a major theme in every Rugby World Cup, and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

I certainly would rather see a SANZAAR side win it more than any other. It’s who we associate with in these parts and to have one of the four win it means we are in good company. So if we are being picky about hemispheres that is the group I refer to when I talk about the SH. It’s not to the exclusion of others, it’s just the group we associate with strongly. We have ONE major club comp, via SANZAAR, and one major championship through the same.

The common thread we have is the proliferation of players being removed from those comps from others, namely the NH.

So for one of those sides to win, despite the NH looking every year more and more that it’s being both coached and represented at the playing level by peeps from our back yard, all the better. So far, we are doing well, but that is being challenged because of the heavy SH saturation.

The reasons they go are completely understandable, but as a fan, you also get to choose who you support, and why.

Now perhaps we can get back to the at times poor officiating and leave ‘preaching’ what one can and can’t say, out of it. Is that even possible?

Rugby Fan wrote:

The Oracle wrote:...Also, I very much doubt that ‘many’ people see the World Cup as NH vs SH....

Aside, perhaps, from the first tournament in 1987, NH vs SH has been a major theme in every Rugby World Cup, and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Sure, the knockout stages have pitted NH vs SH, but to say the whole tournament is essentially a battle of the hemispheres rather than a battle of individual countries against other individual countries is just wide of the mark in my opinion. If it was a hemisphere thing it would be marketed as such. The Japanese would have big NH banners out they’d be screaming ‘go northern hemisphere’. So to suggest I’m not being sincere...... no, I’m being perfectly honest in my own thoughts and impressions on the subject! I genuinely don’t think that many people view the whole tournament and the point of it as some sort of NH v SH battle off.

Agreed. I hope Wales lose every game, don't care which hemisphere the opposition are from 

Taylorman wrote:Plus, if you don’t like my posts then foe me. I take, by not doing that, you do.

Thanks...friend.
.

See, I would, but it doesn't solve the issue. Because you're still there, diverting the convo, running down any NH achievements/doing your best at any and every moment to tak about this *thing* that is plaguing your mind that you seem unhealthily obsessed about. I've never blocked anyone on here, even WUMs. It doesn't really work if you're just seeing gaps in a convo that's been derailed.

You've even done it again this morning after the Japan game. It's been 2 years Taylor. If you see this issue as a problem, THIS is a really unhealthy and unrpoductive way of fixing it. Know your audience.

Boy you got it bad chief. There is no issue to be solved. You have your opinion, I have mine. That’s how it works. Capiche? And unlike you, I stick to my views on the game and it’s events.

I don’t get personal in the way you have.

And what about the Japan game? Ireland twenty minutes ago were number one. They were unbelievably poor.....as I have said for a loooong time that they would underestimate, again, what it takes at World Cup time, especially when going up against SH players and Japan has many, including the coach and co-coach.
Japan rugby has come a long way, but no way would they have won that without the outside, predominantly Pacific based imports they have.
So being correct is also against your agenda?

Tough. Good knowing I have a groupie though.

Taylorman wrote:There is no issue to be solved.:

If you're an ostrich, yeah, fine. I'm just asking you to contribute a bit more than 'NH bad, SH good'. It's literally just a request.

Just consider the possibility that your posting- which is literally the same thing, over and over and over - rubs people the wrong way, and you might get better responses from people on here if you let go of this (clearly facile and incorrect) ideology you're clinging on to. That's all. You're not a representative of the ABs or the SH. You, personally, don't glean any personal pride from the success of the SH. Just try and take a step back and see things in perspective. You're here, on a rugby forum. That's all. It's not that serious, it doesn't mean anything, but if you're pi55ing in the pool, it makes it significantly worse for all involved.

Back to the topic, Rob Kearney took a swinging arm to the face in the game today. Visible black eye on the field. Failed his HIA after/towards the end of the game.

Mitigating circumstances in that he did dip in to the tackle, so never a red card, but as mentioned it seems the TMOs are having minimal input on what the refs' are missing.

What is the point of the high shot rules/laws/directives if someone is taken out of the game with an arm to the head but nothing's done about it? Worth looking at. Gardner relatively poor throughout as well. Mentioned in the week by Kaplan, but he definitely seems to be a nervy ref. Never looked particularly comfortable. Also prone to the old 'he's dropped the ball so it's a knock on' officiating, even when it goes backwards.

Also the Tongan try at HT in the game today. Another TMO issue.

miaow wrote:Back to the topic, Rob Kearney took a swinging arm to the face in the game today. Visible black eye on the field. Failed his HIA after/towards the end of the game.

Mitigating circumstances in that he did dip in to the tackle, so never a red card, but as mentioned it seems the TMOs are having minimal input on what the refs' are missing.

What is the point of the high shot rules/laws/directives if someone is taken out of the game with an arm to the head but nothing's done about it? Worth looking at. Gardner relatively poor throughout as well. Mentioned in the week by Kaplan, but he definitely seems to be a nervy ref. Never looked particularly comfortable. Also prone to the old 'he's dropped the ball so it's a knock on' officiating, even when it goes backwards.

Also the Tongan try at HT in the game today. Another TMO issue.

Oh...and Japan played well today too.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:There is no issue to be solved.:

If you're an ostrich, yeah, fine. I'm just asking you to contribute a bit more than 'NH bad, SH good'. It's literally just a request.

Just consider the possibility that your posting- which is literally the same thing, over and over and over - rubs people the wrong way, and you might get better responses from people on here if you let go of this (clearly facile and incorrect) ideology you're clinging on to. That's all. You're not a representative of the ABs or the SH. You, personally, don't glean any personal pride from the success of the SH. Just try and take a step back and see things in perspective. You're here, on a rugby forum. That's all. It's not that serious, it doesn't mean anything, but if you're pi55ing in the pool, it makes it significantly worse for all involved.

Agree it’s not that serious. But you make it sound sooooo. Chill pal, we’ve a long way to go. Focus on the rugby, and you’ll be fine. You can’t manage others thought on the game, which is all mine are. That’s the beauty of forums, you get differing viewpoints. No ones right, nor wrong, they simply have an opinion.

If what you think you're doing is beautiful, you've fully gone right off in to the deep end of ideological nonsense. I know you don't have Brexit to channel all your personal frustrations and failings in to - and maybe it seems fun from the outside - but you're doing your absolute best to create a black and white, good v evil narrative on...errr...60v2...about....ummmm....rugby.

When all you can fall back on is 'yeah but I'm allowed my opinion' you know you're struggling.

Why don't you find a SH/Kiwi forum where your views will likely receive a receptive audience? If we can surmise that you're on here because you're deliberately looking for push back/confrontation/a false sense of superiority among the other posters by dent of where we're from, you have to ask the question - what's wrong with you, and did an English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish/Frenchman steal you girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband?

Once again you fail to understand how things work, so it’s not only your rugby knowledge that’s lacking.

‘If you think what you’re doing is beautiful’.

Say what? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? You actually want to get into my head and make corrections about my thought process?

Stop trying to control the behaviour of others. You’re far to I tense in that respect. You keep saying it’s just a forum. Let’s keep it that way.

And I do post elsewhere, why wouldn’t I? It’s a simple concept. If you don’t like what I’m saying, don’t engage. And certainly don’t tell me what to say.

Got it yet chief?

"brexit means brexit" is is then...shame. you know you wouldn't behave like this face to face, why do it online.

Roman killed Aus v Wales as a contest in the first half.

What do you call an onside Welshman?

I’ll tell you if I ever find one

tigertattie wrote:What do you call an onside Welshman?

I’ll tell you if I ever find one

So true all game they got away with it, what were the touch judges doing?

tigertattie wrote:What do you call an onside Welshman?

Gareth Davies

Haha that sounds bitter. No mention of missed fouls for Aus' tries and potential yellows . At least you're keep it to the right thread I suppose - something that I suggested last year when your unchecked behaviour got out of control.

Several penalties for offside leading to Hooper's try. How was that getting away with it? Don't recall Australia conceding a single penalty for offside.

Roman will be receiving his Welsh cap about now in the dressing room.

Good one TH. Good one...

Won't do Wales any favours if they get a SH ref who won't allow them to hold onto the ball and be offside all game

TightHEAD wrote:Won't do Wales any favours if they get a SH ref who won't allow them to hold onto the ball and be offside all game

We don’t hold on to the ball. We kick it away!

Noticed Australia seemed to run a lot of blockers today. That ‘swarm’ attack puts a lot of players in the way of our defenders and seemed to go unpunished. Smart play by Aus.

The Oracle wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Won't do Wales any favours if they get a SH ref who won't allow them to hold onto the ball and be offside all game

We don’t hold on to the ball. We kick it away!

Ah but do you kick it more than Ireland or SA?

Apparently they kick the ball even if their opponents have it!